Giltric:Why should I subsidize the rebuilding of multi million dollar homes in California when they rebuild them in the same landslide or wildfire zone that destroyed the previous home?Why should I subsidize some coon ass who keeps rebuilding his shack in a hurricane zone?

Exactly. Why should I pay for some slutty homeowner to make bad decisions. It's not my fault they got pregnant from a hurricane.

Tyrano Soros:Giltric: Why should I subsidize the rebuilding of multi million dollar homes in California when they rebuild them in the same landslide or wildfire zone that destroyed the previous home?Why should I subsidize some coon ass who keeps rebuilding his shack in a hurricane zone?

Exactly. Why should I pay for some slutty homeowner to make bad decisions. It's not my fault they got pregnant from a hurricane.

Because the spawn of that slut will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars over its lifetime...as a conservative I believe we should just pay the 400$ up front for the abortion instead of supporting the child for the rest of its life.

There is no upward mobility, once poor always poor...and then that nonaborted baby winds up breeding more poor people with no chance of upward mobility....right?

SlappyKincaid:log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

...

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

As someone who has been deployed to several state/regional disasters, here's a couple of facts for everyone "just asking questions":

1) Your idea of getting a pool of volunteers together is a great one. Which is why it is already being done. If you are an engineer (especially structural or mechanical) please, please, please,contact your local or state emergency agency and tell them you'd like to help out in disasters. I promise you, they will roll out the red carpet. Same thing if you are any kind of doctor/nurse. Do this TODAY.

If you don't have those qualifications, but can swing a shovel or carry a stretcher, there's a program called CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) (pops) - these are civilians who receive some basic medical/disaster training and can be used as auxiliaries in a major event. They put on free classes and drills and you get a cool vest, helmet, and pager with which to impress the ladies. Should be in most communities of any size - ask you local emergency management agency.

The worst thing you can do, however, is to try and self-deploy. If you're in the immediate area, do what you think needs to be done for the first 24-48 hours (before response teams start arriving), and try to stay safe. That's the no-man's-land of disasters, and I won't say anything against anyone who tries to make things better before coordinated help arrives. But once a coordinated response is underway in an area, please for the love of Shiva stop running around on your own. It makes planning and coordination impossible, causes us to misallocate resources, and overall does more harm than good. The organized approach really does work better, even if it drives me crazy (SOOO much hurry-up-and-wait).

2) So much of what you (and conservatives in general) are complaining about/wishing for already happens. We already have tiered responses. First step is local control. The local authorities are generally responsible for problems in their jurisdiction.

If they can't handle it, they will usually call nearby departments for mutual aid. If the scope of the problem exceeds their capacity, then the locals request aid from the state (which takes several hours at a minimum). Each state also has it's own version of FEMA - ours is called KEMA, and it does exactly the same stuff as FEMA on a state level. It has divided our state into districts, and allocated funding and equipment caches throughout each area. KEMA will activate the regional response team, who have (I believe) 6-12 hours to show up on scene fully equipped & ready to play. If the regional response team can't handle things, then they ask the other five regions for help.

If the resources available to KEMA aren't enough, then (and ONLY then) does the Governor ask for help from the Feds. Usually by that point, we're at least 24 hours in, and it's another 24 hours before Federal responders & equipment start showing up. So now we're 48 hours in. That's assuming that everyone plays nice together and there's no other problems with infrastructure, etc. Are you starting to see why the Feds are asking each family to have 72 hours worth of survival essentials on hand?

FEMA does NOT swoop in and take over. Disaster responsibility is inherently a state responsibility, and for a bunch of constitutional reasons, the Federal Government cannot just brush the locals aside and take over. The local/state officials have to formally request federal help first. That was one of the many reasons that Katrina was so farked up, the Louisiana Governor (Blanco?) dicked around for far too long. There's usually a 48-72 hour lead time before federal resources can get deployed. Gonna be interesting to see if Christie got New Jersey in under the wire this time around.

3) If you really care about saving taxpayers $$$, FEMA is absolutely the way to go. For the same reason it's cheaper for everyone to pool the risk in an insurance company, than to try and have each person save up for the cost of chemotherapy on their own.

Lets say there is a 10% chance of a particular type of disaster that will cost $5 billion to respond to, taking place in a given time frame (numbers pulled from my colon for purposes of poopy illustration).Does it make sense for each state to try to stockpile those resources separately?

$5billion x 50 states = $250 billion total spent by US taxpayers

Or might it make more sense to pool the money?

$5 billion / 50 states = $100 million per state per event.At a 10% chance/state = Average 5 events for the country5 events x $100 million/event = $500 million contribution from each state.Multiply that times 50 states, and you end up with $25 billion dollars spent by US taxpayers.

So for that illustration, the cost of FEMA is 10% the cost of each state going it alone.

4) The dirty little secret of US disaster response is that most of the times, when things are going badly, it's because the Federal (and even State) officials are working in an advisory capacity to the local yokels, who too often ignore sound advice and help until they have their noses rubbed in the fumble-farking job they have been doing. At which point, it takes the FEMA guys a while to dig their way out of the mess they have been handed. By which time news cameras have started to arrive on scene and everyone blames the federal response efforts.

I have personally seen the city police chief and county sheriff refuse to even meet in the same room to coordinate, during an active evacuation while flood waters are still rising, all because the police chief arrested the sheriff's brother-in-law a decade ago, and refused to drop the charges. This picayune bullshiat happens at all levels, and significantly hampers response in the hours where it is needed most.

SlappyKincaid:log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!

Here is an example from close to your Home. It was the great Flood of 93' and I was in the Illinois national guard thowing sand bags trying to save Cahokia, IL. This fllood was also affecting every northern state that touched the Mississipi and it's tributaries. Had there not been a coordinated Federal response, states would act in their own interests screwing over other states. Also FEMA helps coordinate communication, relief aid and various nongovermental agencies. With out that coordination your flood of good meaning volunteers becomes either a hindernce to relief efforts and at worst victims.

werekoala:SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

...

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

As someone who has been deployed to several state/regional disasters, here's a couple of facts for everyone "just asking questions":

1) Your idea of getting a pool of volunteers together is a great one. Which is why it is already being done. If you are an engineer (especially structural or mechanical) please, please, please,contact your local or state emergency agency and tell them you'd like to help out in disasters. I promise you, they will roll out the red carpet. Same thing if you are any kind of doctor/nurse. Do this TODAY.

If you don't have those qualifications, but can swing a shovel or carry a stretcher, there's a program called CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) (pops) - these are civilians who receive some basic medical/disaster training and can be used as auxiliaries in a major event. They put on free classes and drills and you get a cool vest, helmet, and pager with which to impress the ladies. Should be in most communities of any size - ask you local emergency management agency.

If we got rid of 80% of "federal agencies" the world would be a better place, the budget would balance, life would be sweet and all those federal employees would have to contribute to the Gross Domestic Product by doing something useful instead of being dead weight the rest of us have to drag around like George.

each state could be left for themselves, but for any significant natural disaster a state on its own would not have the resources to respond and rebuild. federal assistance represents the unification of our states and how we will not let any one state be devastated without help from the rest of us.

trappedspirit:There are some states that are known for natural disasters. And there are others that are not. Logical thing would be to make everyone pay and keep paying.

Yes, it is logical. When tornadoes ravage Kansas, it has an impact across the country. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it caused issues in Seattle. Natural disasters and the fallout from them are not constrained by the imaginary borders we've erected across this continent.

I'm pretty sure there was a time when, if a national disaster struck, Americans came together and said, "What can we do to help."Republican Jesus has taught us to now say, "Bootstrap your way out of your mess."

Of course Romney thinks the private sector does the best job of providing assistance. Romney's always been able to purchase help, so he doesn't understand why others aren't as bootstrappy as he is. Because he's never been inconvenienced by lack of money, he cannot understand why people (or states, for that matter) forgo something important because their budget won't permit the expenditure.

In my opinion, "provide for the common defense" includes natural disasters as well as military action. If there is anything that the Federal government should be involved in it would be something like this; a multi-state disaster where states are going to require outside assistance. I mean, uh, let's get rid of FEMA and let them fail! Red states have the most disasters anyway.

cman:Citrate1007: I can't wait to see Romney's smirk after thousands are left dead and homeless.

Dude, that's messed up. Why you could think that way I won't know, but that is a sick line of thought

I believe it might be due to his reaction following Bengazi. It seems, based on his history, that he finds things he considers political opportunities or victories to be worth more than the losses involved in them.

brigid_fitch:sammyk: propasaurus: shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.

It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.

I'm guessing they will start slamming Obama for the disaster response before Sandy makes landfall. Hell I will go out on a limb and predict that some right wing arsehole accuses the Obama administration of with holding much needed relief from New Jersey deliberately to get back at Gov. Chris "sausage fingers" Christie. One of the usual trolls in the media will be "asking questions" before noon. Rush will compare it to the events in Benghazi by mid week

While I don't doubt that's going to happen, everyone keep in mind that FEMA can't even be allocated until a state of emergency is declared. And Christie didn't do that until around 3pm today. We were the last state on the East Coast to do it, even though by Saturday night most weather models showed a Jersey Shore landfall,

If ANYONE on the right--or hell, anyone in NJ--starts biatching about FEMA not being allocated earlier, I'm going to beat them over the head w/Christie's 2:45pm press conference video.

There may be a checklist for approving low interest loans through FEMA where the question asks if a state of emergency was declared, but I doubt FEMA can;t move in to help until one is officially declared. FEMA was probbaly in Joplin before all the proper documents were filled out in triplicate and notarized.

I just hope NJ doesn;t have to wait as long as they did in 2011 when the Obama administration claimed they did not survey NJ yet and that;s why they did not recieve assistance.......even though they filed before NY did but were approved after. Remember that?

trappedspirit:You have to pretty much be a moran to misunderstand what Romney said. I do not want him as president, but you really have to be a drooling idiot to take his statements as contradictory.

"I think FEMA is an evil worthless waste, and I will get rid of it as fats as possible.""Thank god we have something like FEMA to help people in times of disaster."

Now, wise one, tell us the hidden meanings, double-speak, and non-contradiction of these statements.

trappedspirit:There are some states that are known for natural disasters. And there are others that are not. Logical thing would be to make everyone pay and keep paying.

We're one country, all states interconnected on MANY levels. A disaster in one state does have repercussions on others, especially if it's a state that grows a lot of our food, makes a lot of our products, etc. As one country, we all work together.

Keizer_Ghidorah:We're one country, all states interconnected on MANY levels. A disaster in one state does have repercussions on others, especially if it's a state that grows a lot of our food, makes a lot of our products, etc. As one country, we all work together.

Is this really that difficult of a concept for you to understand?

Quit ridiculing the Fark One-Man-Island Rugged Individualists(TM). They have a right to want to keep the government out of their Medicare and Social Security.

timujin:trappedspirit: There are some states that are known for natural disasters. And there are others that are not. Logical thing would be to make everyone pay and keep paying.

Yes, it is logical. When tornadoes ravage Kansas, it has an impact across the country. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it caused issues in Seattle. Natural disasters and the fallout from them are not constrained by the imaginary borders we've erected across this continent.

Keizer_Ghidorah:trappedspirit: You have to pretty much be a moran to misunderstand what Romney said. I do not want him as president, but you really have to be a drooling idiot to take his statements as contradictory.

"I think FEMA is an evil worthless waste, and I will get rid of it as fats as possible.""Thank god we have something like FEMA to help people in times of disaster."

Now, wise one, tell us the hidden meanings, double-speak, and non-contradiction of these statements.

Because last I checked the states didn't have their own FEMA replacement systems in place. It's the same tired political creative interpretation that also lets people feel smart when they criticize Al Gore for travelling in fossil fuel burning vehicles to deliver his message of lowering our carbon footprint.

trappedspirit:Keizer_Ghidorah: trappedspirit: You have to pretty much be a moran to misunderstand what Romney said. I do not want him as president, but you really have to be a drooling idiot to take his statements as contradictory.

"I think FEMA is an evil worthless waste, and I will get rid of it as fats as possible.""Thank god we have something like FEMA to help people in times of disaster."

Now, wise one, tell us the hidden meanings, double-speak, and non-contradiction of these statements.

Because last I checked the states didn't have their own FEMA replacement systems in place. It's the same tired political creative interpretation that also lets people feel smart when they criticize Al Gore for travelling in fossil fuel burning vehicles to deliver his message of lowering our carbon footprint.

So you agree that Romney is a flip-flopping idiot who doesn't care about what happens to the common people? Because him wanting to get rid of a national emergency response system makes him look that way.

/states do have people and resources for disasters, but most disasters are too much for even the most well-prepared state//is it so wrong to have a federal means to help people in place?

Thanks, verbaltoxin! I know I kinda ran on, but I think it's important that people understand some of these things. Rather than being load, bellicose idiots who barge in at the last minute, figure everyone else is morans, and shout that things aren't being done when in fact, they just couldn't be bothered to notice them.

I'm sure this happens all the time, I just happen to know something about this particular subject.

trappedspirit:timujin: trappedspirit: There are some states that are known for natural disasters. And there are others that are not. Logical thing would be to make everyone pay and keep paying.

Yes, it is logical. When tornadoes ravage Kansas, it has an impact across the country. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it caused issues in Seattle. Natural disasters and the fallout from them are not constrained by the imaginary borders we've erected across this continent.

You're saying that FEMA helped people in Seattle when Katrina hit?

Yes, because they did. Responding to the disaster and getting New Orleans back on its feet as fast as possible, which was FEMA's job, reduces the impact on the rest of the country.

werekoala:SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

...

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

As someone who has been deployed to several state/regional disasters, here's a couple of facts for everyone "just asking questions":

1) Your idea of getting a pool of volunteers together is a great one. Which is why it is already being done. If you are an engineer (especially structural or mechanical) please, please, please,contact your local or state emergency agency and tell them you'd like to help out in disasters. I promise you, they will roll out the red carpet. Same thing if you are any kind of doctor/nurse. Do this TODAY.

If you don't have those qualifications, but can swing a shovel or carry a stretcher, there's a program called CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) (pops) - these are civilians who receive some basic medical/disaster training and can be used as auxiliaries in a major event. They put on free classes and drills and you get a cool vest, helmet, and pager with which to impress the ladies. Should be in most communities of any size - ask you local emergency management agency.

That is true. Many states these days are over budget and in their current state many would need to rely on the federal government for help in a disaster.

I'm not saying it wouldn't take effort but why can't each state set aside a certain amount of funds that could be allocated to disaster relief, especially in states prone to natural disaster? Florida, Kansas and California come to mind, though Katrina also puts Louisiana on the list. They could earmark funds that cannot be touched except in the case of a disaster.

I look at something like Katrina or 9/11 and it was amazing to see just how many citizens pulled together to give freely of their time and energy to help others out and I wonder why states can't advertise for that.

Maybe it's the neighborhoods I've lived in but people are more than willing to help out others when things happen. I remember my parents taking in our neighbors for like 3 months when a fire pretty much demolished their home. That left an indelible mark on my perception of charity and I wish more would adopt that attitude. Self reliance and helping others when needed.

Perhaps that what FEMA is doing at it's core. I'm just not a fan of red tape! It slows down action!

Kansas?

With Brownback in charge?

Brownback has done to Kansas what Romney only dreams of doing to America.

wademh:I'm sure he spins fast enough to generate a few megawatts / hour.

Errr... megawatts are a unit of power, energy over time. The "/ hour" would seem to be redundant. (Unless you're referring to slew rate? That's almost too obscure for Fark.)

Also, while he likely spins hard enough, but it looks like a square wave with well below 10μHz frequency. You'd need some pretty major transformer hardware to put out the few megawatts as basic 60Hz AC.